Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a special leave petition filed by a retired professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) challenging a High Court order that had set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal decision granting him General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme benefits. The dispute concerned whether the petitioner, whose services were regularised as Professor on 04.05.2012, was entitled to be covered under the GPF Scheme rather than the Central Pension Fund Scheme. The petitioner had been initially appointed as Research Associate on contractual basis in 1984 and was covered under the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised in various posts over the years, and he was ultimately regularised as Professor on 04.05.2012 by Office Order No.98, which stipulated that regularisation would take effect from the date of the order and that services would continue under the existing CPF Scheme. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2017 and received all retiral benefits on 14.02.2017, including NIRD's contribution to the CPF amount. Thereafter, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.45 of 2017 seeking a declaration that continuing him under the CPF Scheme was illegal and contrary to the NIRD Rules of 2011 and the NIRD Service Bye-laws. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application on 15.07.2019, relying on its earlier decision in favour of a similarly situated colleague, Mr. S.S.P. Sharma, whose services were also regularised on 04.05.2012 on identical conditions. Mr. Sharma had filed O.A. No.109 of 2015; the Tribunal allowed it, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging it. However, the Supreme Court in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma (Civil Appeal No.542 of 2023, decided on 28.02.2023) considered Bye-law 52 and the Rules of 2011 and held that regularisation of Mr. Sharma's services operated from the date of the regularisation order and not from initial appointment, because the order specifically stated it would take effect from the date of issuance and the conditions were not challenged. Consequently, when NIRD challenged the Tribunal's order in the petitioner's case, the High Court applied that decision and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 15.07.2019, finding that the petitioner was similarly situated and had approached the Tribunal only after retirement and after accepting CPF benefits. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and respondents, agreed that the petitioner's case was covered by the S.S.P. Sharma decision. The Court emphasised that the petitioner had not challenged the terms and conditions of the regularisation order dated 04.05.2012, which included continuation under the CPF Scheme, and had accepted benefits under that scheme. The Court held that the petitioner was rightly non-suited by the High Court and found no reason to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Prospective Effect of Regularisation Order - National Institute of Rural Development Rules, 2011, Rule 6; NIRD Service Bye-laws, Bye-law 52 Clause (a), Bye-laws 48 and 49 - The regularisation order dated 04.05.2012 specifically provided that it would take effect from the date of issuance and that services would continue under the CPF Scheme; the petitioner did not challenge these conditions. Held that regularisation operated from 04.05.2012 and not from the date of initial appointment, consistent with Supreme Court decision in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma (Paras 5-7). B) Service Law - Pension and Provident Fund - Acceptance of CPF Benefits Bars Later Claim to GPF - National Institute of Rural Development Rules, 2011, Rule 6; NIRD Service Bye-laws - The petitioner retired on 31.01.2017 and received all retiral benefits on 14.02.2017 including NIRD's contribution to CPF; he approached CAT only after retirement. Held that having accepted benefits under the CPF Scheme, he was rightly non-suited from claiming GPF benefits (Paras 3, 6-7). C) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 136 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The petitioner was similarly situated as Mr. S.S.P. Sharma whose regularisation order was on identical conditions; the Supreme Court had already decided the issue in S.S.P. Sharma. Held that no reason whatsoever existed to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136; SLP dismissed (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a retired Professor of NIRD whose services were regularised on 04.05.2012, was entitled to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the Central Pension Fund Scheme, and whether the High Court rightly applied the Supreme Court's decision in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.
Final Decision
Special Leave Petition dismissed; High Court order setting aside CAT order and dismissing O.A. upheld
Law Points
- Regularisation order effective from date of issuance unless conditions are challenged
- acceptance of benefits under Central Pension Fund Scheme after retirement bars later claim for General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme
- Supreme Court decision in similarly situated case applies as binding precedent
- no interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India when no exceptional grounds exist
- NIRD Rules
- 2011 and Bye-law 52 govern entitlement to provident fund scheme based on date of regularisation
